Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:40:16.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The aerodynamic interaction at the junction between a forward-swept wing and a plate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. D. Arnottt  and
L. Bernstein
A. D. Arnottt
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, London, UK
L. Bernstein
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study has been carried out of the aerodynamic interference flow arising at the junction of a cambered, swept-forward wing and a flat plate on which a fully-developed turbulent boundary layer approached the junction. CFD predictions of the pressure field in the junction region were carried out. Flow visualisation tests and surface pressure measurements over a wind-tunnel model were conducted at incidences from -3° to +9°. With the wing at zero incidence, a single-tube yawmeter was used to explore the flow around the leading edge of the junction arid an X-wire anemometer to examine the mean velocity and turbulence fields in the streamwise corners and at the trailing edge. The Reynolds number of the tests, based on the streamwise chord and a free-stream velocity of 30ms-1, was 1·03 x 106.

At low incidence, a very weak separation occurred in the plate boundary layer, a very short distance upstream of the junction. However the oncoming stream converges into the junction, appearing to confine any vortical motion at the leading edge to within a very thin layer below the closest point of measurement to the plate. Rudimentary vortical flow developed slightly downstream of the leading edge, but dissipated further downstream. Although weak vortices were measured in the trailing-edge cross-flow plane, these were attributed to separations just upstream. The turbulence activity in the streamwise corners was found to be surprisingly low, especially on the compression side of the junction. Estimates of the skin-friction showed that it was lower over the majority of the trailing-edge crossplane than in the plate boundary layer upstream of the junction. At higher incidences, flow visualisations revealed severe stall in the junction, with large three-dimensional recirculating regions forming.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1032 , February 2000 , pp. 67 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Currently at the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

References

1. Baker, C.J. The turbulent horse-shoe vortex. J Wind Engg and Ind Aero, 1980, 6, pp 9–23.Google Scholar
2. Kubendran, L.R., Mcmahon, H.M. and Hubbartt, J.E. Turbulent flow around a wing/fuselage type juncture. AIAA J, 1986, 24, pp 1447–1452.Google Scholar
3. Bernstein, L. and Hamid, S. On the effect of a strake-like junction fillet on the lift and drag of a wing, Aeronaut J, February 1996, 100, (992), pp 39–52.Google Scholar
4. Devenport, W.J. and Simpson, R.L. Time-dependent and time-averaged turbulence structure near the nose of a wing-body junction, J Fl Mech 1990, 210, pp 23–55.Google Scholar
5. Arnott, A.D. The Effect of Forward Sweep on a wing-body Junction Flow. PhD thesis, University of London. 1996.Google Scholar
6. Uhuad, G.C., Weeks, T.M. and Large, R. Wind tunnel investigation of the transonic aerodynamic characteristics of swept-forward wings, J Aircr, 1983, 20, pp 195–202.Google Scholar
7. Redecker, G. and Wichmann, G. Forward sweep — a favourable concept for a laminar flow wing, J Aircr, 1991, 28, pp 97–103.Google Scholar
8. Weissharr, T.A. Divergence of forward-swept composite wings, J Aircr, 1980, 17, pp 442–448.Google Scholar
9. Arnott, A.D., Bernstein, L. and Petty, D.G. A note on the pressure drag of a forward-swept-wing-plate junction, Aeronaut J, August/September 1996, 100, (997), pp 281–284.Google Scholar
10. Devenport, W.J. and Simpson, R.L. The flow past a wing-body junction — an experimental evaluation of turbulence models, AIAA J, 1992, 30, pp 873–881.Google Scholar
11. King, D.A. and Williams, B.R. Developments in computational methods for high-lift aerodynamics, Aeronaut J, August/September 1988, 92, (917), pp 265–288.Google Scholar
12. Horton, H.P. A semi-empirical theory for the growth and bursting of laminar separation bubbles. ARC Current Paper 1073, 1967.Google Scholar
13. Petrie, J.A.H. Development of an Efficient and Versatile Program for Aerodynamic Problems. PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 1979.Google Scholar
14. Chu, J., Rios-Chiquete, E., Sarohia, S.H. and Bernstein, L. The Chu-tube: a velocimeter for use in highly-sheared, three-dimensional steady flows, Aeronaut J, March 1987, 91, (903), pp 142–149.Google Scholar
15. Siddall, R.G. and Davies, T.W. An improved response equation for hot-wire anemometry, Int J Ht and Mass Trans, 1972, 15, pp 367–368.Google Scholar
16. Bernstein, L. and Hamid, S. On the effect of a swept-wing-plate junction flow on the lift and drag, Aeronaut J, August/September 1995, 99, (987), pp 293–305.Google Scholar